-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Enoch,
What about the following (real) session log
> forward: foo
ok
> : bar foo ;
ok
> bar
found only forward declaration.
> : foo ." Hey" ;
ok
> bar
Hey ok
>
? It declares a forward symbol named foo which is used
in bar. There is a r
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Matthias Trute wrote:
>
> > Of course you'll blow the return stack pretty fast without tail
> > call elimination. I confess I've looked at all the available Forths
> > for the AVR so I can't remember if AmForth provides this
> > capability.
>
> The amforth compil
Hello Matthias,
Matthias Trute writes:
> What about the following (real) session log
>
> > forward: foo
> ok
> > : bar foo ;
> ok
> > bar
> found only forward declaration.
> > : foo ." Hey" ;
> ok
> > bar
> Hey ok
> >
IMO this is indeed the correct approach i.e., there's no need for t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
> IMO this is indeed the correct approach i.e., there's no need for
> the previously suggested resolve-to word.
And there is no need to guessing involved at the places where the
indirections should be changed to direct calls.
> + Let this "fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Sam,
> In avrforth http://krue.net/avrforth/control/ there's a separate
> `;` and `;;`. Would it be possible to add a `;;` that behaves like
> the `;` in avrforth?
I have no idea how a tail call recursion elimination would look like in
an ITC for
